Article Identification of a Natural Hybrid between sclerophylla and Castanopsis tibetana () Based on and Nuclear DNA Sequences

Xiaorong Zeng, Risheng Chen, Yunxin Bian, Xinsheng Qin, Zhuoxin Zhang and Ye Sun *

Guangdong Key Laboratory for Innovative Development and Utilization of Forest Germplasm, College of and Landscape Architecture, South University, Guangzhou 510642, China; [email protected] (X.Z.); [email protected] (R.C.); [email protected] (Y.B.); [email protected] (X.Q.); [email protected] (Z.Z.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-136-4265-9676

 Received: 30 June 2020; Accepted: 7 August 2020; Published: 11 August 2020 

Abstract: Castanopsis kuchugouzhuiHuang et Y. T. Chang was recorded in Flora Reipublicae Popularis × Sinicae (FRPS) as a hybrid on Yuelushan mountain, but it is treated as a hybrid between Castanopsis sclerophylla (Lindl.) Schott. and Castanopsis tibetana Hance in . After a thorough investigation on Yuelushan mountain, we found a of C. sclerophylla and one individual of C. kuchugouzhui, × but no living individual of C. tibetana. We collected C. kuchugouzhui, and we sampled 42 individuals of × C. sclerophylla from Yuelushan and Xiushui and 43 individuals of C. tibetana from Liangyeshan and Xiushui. Weused chloroplast DNA sequences and 29 nuclear microsatellite markers to investigate if C. kuchugouzhui × is a natural hybrid between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana. The chloroplast haplotype analysis showed that C. kuchugouzhuishared haplotype H2 with C. sclerophylla on Yuelushan. The STRUCTURE analysis × identified two distinct genetic pools that corresponded well to C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana, revealing the of C. kuchugouzhui. Furthermore, the NewHybrids analysis suggested that × C. kuchugouzhuiis an F2 hybrid between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana. Our results confirm that × C. kuchugouzhuirecorded in FRPS is a rare hybrid between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana. × Keywords: Castanopsis kuchugouzhui; natural hybrid; molecular identification; chloroplast DNA × sequence; microsatellite

1. Introduction Hybridization is a process through which there is interbreeding of individuals from two genetically distinct or species [1]. It was estimated that at least 25% of plant species, mostly the youngest species, were involved in hybridization and potential with other species [2]. A large number of studies showed that natural hybridization is ubiquitous in different taxa [3–6], and it plays a significant role in generating , even the origin of new or species [7–10]. Research on natural hybridization has become a hot spot in the field of plant and in recent years [11–13]. Hybrid identification is the first step in exploring the intricate evolutionary history of natural hybridization. The morphological characteristics of natural hybrids are usually intermediate or more similar to one of their parents, and they a gradually morphological transition that often causes the blurred and indistinguishable boundary of the species [14]. Chloroplast DNA is uniparentally inherited (maternal inheritance in most angiosperm) and nuclear DNA is biparentally inherited; thus, a comparative analysis of nuclear DNA and chloroplast DNA would provide complementary and often

Forests 2020, 11, 873; doi:10.3390/f11080873 www.mdpi.com/journal/forests Forests 2020, 11, 873 2 of 11 contrasting information on the genetic structure and phylogenies. Interspecific hybrids are commonly identified by cytonuclear discordance that may indicate different parental contribution to the hybrid genome [4,15–17]. Castanopsis sclerophylla (Lindl.) Schott. and Castanopsis tibetana Hance are dominant species in mid-subtropical evergreen broad-leaved forest in China. Castanopsis sclerophylla is mainly distributed in the north of Nanling mountain, south of the Yangtze River, and east of and provinces [18]. Castanopsis tibetana is widely distributed in subtropical China and overlaps with the range of C. sclerophylla. Castanopsis tibetana grows together with C. sclerophylla in a forest on Yuelushan mountain of Changsha City in Province, where a specimen of Castanopsis kuchugouzhui × Huang et Y. T. Chang was collected according to Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae (FRPS) [18]. The and cupules of C. kuchugouzhui show intermediate morphologies between C. sclerophylla × and C. tibetana; thus, it is recognized as a hybrid species in FRPS [18]. However, C. kuchugouzhui is × assumed to be a putative natural hybrid between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana in Flora of China [19]. Up to now, there is no molecular evidence for this putative hybrid. The purpose of this study was to verify whether C. kuchugouzhui is a natural hybrid between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana by using × chloroplast DNA sequences and nuclear microsatellite markers.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Materials and DNA Extraction After a thorough investigation of this forest on Yuelushan mountain in 2017–2019, we found a population of C. sclerophylla and one individual of C. kuchugouzhui, but no living individual × of C. tibetana. According to the information obtained from Yuelushan Mountain Scenic Area Administration Bureau and Hunan Normal University, this C. kuchugouzhui is more than 100 years × old and it is the same individual reported by FRPS. We sampled C. kuchugouzhui and 20 individuals × of C. sclerophylla on Yuelushan. We further sampled 22 individuals of C. sclerophylla and 19 individuals of C. tibetana from Xiushui, as well as 24 individuals of C. tibetana from Liangyeshan (Table1). For each population, eight to 10 fresh leaves per were chosen and quickly dried with silica gel, and the individuals were sampled at least 20 m apart from each other. Voucher specimens were made for C. kuchugouzhui and each population, and they were stored in the Dendrological Herbarium of South × China Agricultural University (CANT).

Table 1. Location, sample size, and genetic diversity of the investigated populations.

Species Location/Population Code Latitude (N) Longitude (E) Sample Size AAR HFIS

Castanopsis Xiushui/KZ-XS 28◦55023” 114◦43012” 22 5.6 5.426 0.629 0.103 * sclerophylla Yuelushan/KZ-YLS 28◦10049” 112◦56028” 20 5.5 5.430 0.580 0.052 Average 21 5.6 5.428 0.605 0.078 Castanopsis Yuelushan/KZGK-YLS 28 10 49” 112 56 28” 1 kuchugouzhui× ◦ 0 ◦ 0 Castanopsis Liangyeshan/GK-LYS 25 12 35” 116 10 48” 24 3.3 3.219 0.481 0.057 ◦ 0 ◦ 0 − tibetana Xiushui/GK-XS 28 55 23” 114 43 12” 19 2.9 2.862 0.427 0.068 ◦ 0 ◦ 0 − Average 22 3.1 3.041 0.454 0.063 − N: north, E: east, A: total number of detected, AR: allelic richness for 19 diploid individuals, H: diversity, FIS: fixation index. * Deviated from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium significantly (p < 0.01).

Total genomic DNA was extracted using the DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, ) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The quality and concentration of the genomic DNA were evaluated by electrophoresis on 1% agarose gels and NanoDropTM 2000 Spectrophotometers (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).

2.2. Chloroplast DNA Sequencing and Nuclear Microsatellite Genotyping The chloroplast DNA of psbA-trnH and trnM-trnV intergenic spacers was amplified and sequenced with primers described in References [20,21]. The total volume of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) Forests 2020, 11, 873 3 of 11 was 30 µL, which contained 1 ES Tag Master Mix (Cwbiotech, Beijing, China), 0.2 µM each of forward × and reverse primers, and 20 ng of DNA. PCR amplification was conducted for 33 cycles in a TaKaRa PCR Thermal Cycler Dice™ Gradient (TP600) (TAKARA, Kyoto, ). Each cycle included 45 s at 95 ◦C, 45 s at annealing temperature, and 45 s at 72 ◦C. An initial pre-denaturation for 5 min at 95 ◦C and a final extension for 7 min at 72 ◦C were added. Polymorphic nuclear microsatellites were screened from 173 simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers originally developed in C. sclerophylla, , , Castanopsis tribuloides, , and [22–28]. One sample in each population and C. kuchugouzhui × were used in a preliminary experiment to test SSR amplification. PCR was performed in a total volume of 10 µL that consisted of 1 ES Tag Master Mix, 0.5 µM each of forward and reverse primers, and 20 ng × of DNA. The PCR program was the same as above apart from the annealing temperature. PCR products were separated by electrophoresis on 3% agarose gels. A total of 75 pairs of primers that generated a clear electrophoretic band were applied to the multiple PCR, in which the forward primers were labeled with fluorochromes TAMRA, HEX, 6-FAM, and ROX. The primers with different fluorescence were combined, and we tried to keep their predicted products 30–50 bp apart. The Type-it Microsatellite PCR Kit (QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) was used to prepare the multiple PCR with a total volume of 10 µL, which contained 1 PCR Master Mix, × 1 Q-Solution, 0.2 µM each of forward and reverse primers, and 20 ng of DNA. Two samples in × each population and C. kuchugouzhi were used in this experiment. The PCR programs included an × initial pre-denaturation of 5 min at 95 ◦C, followed by 28 cycles of 30 s at 95 ◦C, 90 s at 57 ◦C, 30 s at 72 ◦C, and a final extension of 30 min at 60 ◦C. PCR products were visualized on an ABI-3730XL fluorescence sequencer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) using LIZ500 as an internal size standard. Alleles (Table S1) were scored using GeneMarker v 2.2.0 [29]. Finally, 32 pairs of primers with high and stability were applied to all samples.

2.3. Data Analyses DNA sequences of psbA-trnH (GenBank accession numbers: MT635060-MT635092) and trnM-trnV (GenBank accession numbers: MT635093-MT635125) were manually checked using BioEdit [30]. Multiple alignments were carried out using MEGA v 7 [31] with Castanopsis fabri (GenBank accession numbers: MF592976, MF592882) as the outgroup. Haplotypes were retrieved using DnaSP v 6.12.03 [32], and a reduced median-joining network was constructed using NETWORK v 5.0 [33] to infer haplotype relationships. Genetic diversity parameters including number of alleles detected (A), allelic richness (AR), gene diversity (H), observed heterozygosity (HO), gene diversity within populations (HS), gene diversity in total population (HT), fixation index (FIS), and genetic differentiation among populations (FST) under an infinite model were calculated per locus using FSTAT v 2.9.4 [34]. The Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium was tested by permuting alleles and comparing the fixation index calculated from randomized datasets to that obtained from the observed dataset; p-values were subjected to Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Three loci significantly deviated from the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium both in C. sclerophylla and in C. tibetana; they were excluded from all subsequent analyses. Genetic differentiation and exchange of C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana were assessed with a model-based Bayesian clustering method implemented in the program STRUCTURE v 2.3.4 [35] by choosing the admixture model and correlated allele frequencies between populations. Ten independent runs were conducted for each K value (from 1 to 5) with 100,000 MCMC (Markov chain Monte Carlo) iterations after 50,000 burn-in period. The optimal number of clusters (K) was determined through the statistic ∆K based on the second-order rate of change in the log probability of data between successive K values [36]. The average matrix of ancestry membership proportions was calculated over the 10 runs using CLUMPP v 1.1.2 [37]. Each individual was assigned to a genotype category with posterior probability by using the program NewHybrids v 1.1 beta [38]. We considered six genotype categories: Parent 1, Parent 2, Forests 2020, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 11

Each individual was assigned to a genotype category with posterior probability by using the Forestsprogram2020 ,NewHybrids11, 873 v 1.1 beta [38]. We considered six genotype categories: Parent 1, Parent 42, of F1 11 hybrids, F2 hybrids, backcross generation to Parent 1, and backcross generation to Parent 2 [39]. The analysis was run for 100,000 rounds after a burn-in of 50,000 iterations. F1 hybrids, F2 hybrids, backcross generation to Parent 1, and backcross generation to Parent 2 [39]. The3. Results analysis was run for 100,000 rounds after a burn-in of 50,000 iterations.

3.3.1. Results Chloroplatst DNA Variation 3.1. ChloroplatstAfter alignment DNA Variationusing C. fabri as outgroup, the total length of chloroplast sequences was 1158 bp, from which seven variable sites and six haplotypes were identified. The sequence variants and After alignment using C. fabri as outgroup, the total length of chloroplast sequences was 1158 bp, their positions are shown in Table 2. Within the lineage of C. sclerophylla/C. tibetana, five variable sites from which seven variable sites and six haplotypes were identified. The sequence variants and their and five haplotypes were identified. Haplotypes H1 and H2 were detected in populations of C. positions are shown in Table2. Within the lineage of C. sclerophylla/C. tibetana, five variable sites and sclerophylla, while haplotypes H3, H4, and H5 were found only in C. tibetana. Castanopsis × five haplotypes were identified. Haplotypes H1 and H2 were detected in populations of C. sclerophylla, kuchugouzhui shared haplotype H2 with C. sclerophylla at the Yuelushan. Population GK-XS possessed while haplotypes H3, H4, and H5 were found only in C. tibetana. Castanopsis kuchugouzhui shared two haplotypes H4 and H5, while the other populations were fixed for one unique× haplotype. There haplotype H2 with C. sclerophylla at the Yuelushan. Population GK-XS possessed two haplotypes was no shared common haplotype between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana, nor between C. × H4 and H5, while the other populations were fixed for one unique haplotype. There was no shared kuchugouzhui and C. tibetana. Relationships among haplotypes are shown in Figure 1. Haplotype H2 common haplotype between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana, nor between C. kuchugouzhui and C. tibetana. was closely related to H1, and they diverged from haplotypes H3, H4, ×and H5, which constituted a Relationships among haplotypes are shown in Figure1. Haplotype H2 was closely related to H1, and haplogroup. they diverged from haplotypes H3, H4, and H5, which constituted a haplogroup.

Table 2. DNA sequence variation and chloroplast haplotypes revealed in this study. Variable Site Population Variable Site Species Haplotype Frequency psbA-trnH trnM-trnV Species PopulationCode Code Haplotype Frequency psbA-trnH trnM-trnV 100 258 284 478 491 672 892 Castanopsis KZ-XS H1 8 100C 258T 284A 478C 491C 672G 892C Castanopsissclerophylla KZ-YLSKZ-XS H2 H1 8 8 C C TT AA CC CA GG C sclerophyllaCastanopsis × KZ-YLS H2 8 C T A C A G C KZGK-YLS H2 1 C T A C A G C Castanopsiskuchugouzhui × KZGK-YLS H2 1 C T A C A G C kuchugouzhui GK-LYS H3 8 C T A C C T A Castanopsis GK-LYSH4 H3 8 7 C C TT AA CA CC TT A Castanopsis tibetana GK-XS H4 7 C T A A C T A tibetana GK-XS H5 1 C C A C C T A Castanopsis fabri outgroup H6H5 1 1 C T CT AT CC CC TG AC Castanopsis fabri outgroup H6 1 T T T C C G C

Figure 1. Haplotype relationships shown on median-joining network. The size of each circle is proportionalFigure 1. Haplotype to the haplotype relationships frequency. shown Mutational on median-joini steps betweenng network. the haplotypes The size are of indicated each circle on the is line.proportional Population to the codes haplotype are the samefrequency. as in TableMutation1. al steps between the haplotypes are indicated on the line. Population codes are the same as in Table 1. 3.2. Genetic Diversity at Nuclear Microsatellite Loci

In C. sclerophylla, a total of 195 alleles were revealed at 29 nuclear microsatellite loci (Table3). Per locus, the number of alleles ranged from two to 15, and the observed heterozygosity (HO) varied Forests 2020, 11, 873 5 of 11

from 0.143 to 0.932. The within-population gene diversity (HS) and the overall gene diversity (HT) ranged from 0.286–0.900 and from 0.312–0.907, respectively. Over the 29 loci, the values of FIS and FST were 0.080 and 0.053, respectively. Five of 29 loci significantly deviated from the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (p < 0.01).

Table 3. Genetic diversity at 29 nuclear microsatellite loci in Castanopsis sclerophylla.

Locus Allele Size AHO HS HT FIS FST CC-30080 151–163 5 0.473 0.549 0.545 0.132 0.013 − CC-33079-1 189–209 7 0.259 0.468 0.546 0.455 * 0.244 CC-935 131–149 6 0.668 0.662 0.669 0.011 0.022 − CsCAT34 149–161 5 0.475 0.486 0.521 0.026 0.128 CC-14826 228–244 9 0.423 0.461 0.462 0.079 0.006 CC-2994 269–272 2 0.150 0.498 0.499 0.714 * 0.004 CC-3722 131–145 5 0.548 0.570 0.598 0.042 0.087 CC-6538 169–185 6 0.734 0.713 0.727 0.029 0.037 − CC-4950 247–283 15 0.693 0.900 0.907 0.233 * 0.016 CcC02022 351–375 11 0.764 0.795 0.807 0.040 0.029 CFA22 156–162 3 0.186 0.286 0.312 0.354 0.150 CC-25032 176–194 5 0.143 0.454 0.455 0.688 * 0.002 CC-41284 271–289 10 0.759 0.825 0.862 0.073 0.081 CS05 156–178 7 0.764 0.741 0.744 0.025 0.008 − CC-43042 186–210 6 0.464 0.582 0.622 0.215 0.120 CFA71 174–204 9 0.809 0.840 0.845 0.037 0.011 CC-42621 288–297 3 0.366 0.308 0.319 0.183 0.064 − CsCAT14 124–154 15 0.932 0.856 0.865 0.087 0.020 − CC-4562 144–156 3 0.782 0.657 0.661 0.194 0.011 − CC-26213 122–152 4 0.505 0.619 0.637 0.190 0.055 CFA61 184–212 11 0.761 0.601 0.601 0.268 0.001 − CS24 123–144 7 0.784 0.730 0.725 0.077 0.015 − − CS43 148–168 7 0.755 0.702 0.718 0.079 0.042 − CT161 148–157 4 0.395 0.362 0.388 0.094 0.124 − CT128 163–202 4 0.455 0.456 0.480 0.003 0.099 − CS20 249–273 8 0.741 0.728 0.780 0.024 0.128 − CS44 135–147 7 0.748 0.797 0.807 0.050 0.025 CC-33079 243–259 6 0.310 0.370 0.387 0.171 0.081 CC-4323 231–249 5 0.309 0.521 0.543 0.411 * 0.077 Mean 6.7 0.557 0.605 0.622 0.080 0.053

A: total number of alleles detected, HO: observed heterozygosity, HS: gene diversity within populations, HT: gene diversity in total population, FIS: fixation index (a coefficient based on the difference among observed and expected heterozygosity), FST: genetic differentiation among populations (a coefficient based on the difference among expected heterozygosity within populations and expected heterozygosity in the species). * Deviated from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium significantly (p < 0.01).

In C. tibetana, a total of 115 alleles were revealed at 29 nuclear microsatellite markers (Table4). Per locus, the number of alleles ranged from two to nine, and the observed heterozygosity (HO) varied from 0.021 to 0.921. The within-population gene diversity (HS) and the overall gene diversity (HT) ranged from 0.155–0.746 and from 0.171–0.786, respectively. Over the 29 loci, the values of FIS and FST were 0.061 and 0.204, respectively. Five of 29 loci significantly deviated from the Hardy–Weinberg − equilibrium (p < 0.01). Forests 2020, 11, 873 6 of 11

Table 4. Genetic diversity at 29 nuclear microsatellite loci in Castanopsis tibetana.

Locus Allele Size AHO HS HT FIS FST CC-30080 148–166 7 0.465 0.680 0.722 0.268 * 0.113 CC-33079-1 197–205 3 0.644 0.495 0.547 0.293 0.173 − CC-935 131–133 2 0.372 0.356 0.356 0.030 0.002 − − CsCAT34 147–153 3 0.530 0.417 0.419 0.246 0.008 − CC-14826 226–244 6 0.702 0.614 0.734 0.135 0.281 − CC-2994 266–275 2 0.404 0.353 0.350 0.126 0.019 − − CC-3722 137–141 3 0.721 0.573 0.598 0.275 0.079 − CC-6538 161–187 7 0.627 0.547 0.711 0.150 0.366 − CC-4950 247–257 2 0.503 0.469 0.470 0.049 0.003 − CcC02022 353–361 5 0.753 0.697 0.731 0.088 0.086 − CFA22 156–158 2 0.342 0.228 0.285 0.502 0.363 − CC-25032 182–194 2 0.921 0.495 0.498 0.876 0.010 − CC-41284 271–273 2 0.419 0.361 0.503 0.152 0.439 − CS05 156–160 3 0.021 0.163 0.175 0.872 * 0.115 CC-43042 204–240 3 0.219 0.196 0.199 0.125 0.032 − CFA71 184–214 8 0.702 0.663 0.786 0.045 0.269 − CC-42621 291–294 2 0.354 0.231 0.439 0.532 0.616 − CsCAT14 130–138 2 0.167 0.194 0.198 0.089 0.037 CC-4562 144–168 6 0.659 0.575 0.772 0.132 * 0.398 − CC-26213 137–157 3 0.346 0.680 0.673 0.521 * 0.021 − CFA61 184–196 3 0.246 0.221 0.222 0.113 0.004 − CS24 117–144 9 0.602 0.640 0.683 0.042 0.119 CS43 144–164 7 0.791 0.746 0.765 0.066 0.049 − CT161 145–148 2 0.414 0.320 0.331 0.279 0.066 − CT128 181–199 6 0.451 0.468 0.722 0.027 * 0.528 CS20 239–253 7 0.555 0.672 0.707 0.171 0.095 CS44 137–141 3 0.325 0.508 0.513 0.363 0.020 CC-33079 247–257 3 0.539 0.448 0.591 0.183 0.387 − CC-4323 237–240 2 0.188 0.155 0.171 0.208 0.156 − Mean 4.0 0.482 0.454 0.513 0.061 0.204 − A: total number of alleles detected, HO: observed heterozygosity, HS: gene diversity within populations, HT: gene diversity in total population, FIS: fixation index (a coefficient based on the difference among observed and expected heterozygosity), FST: genetic differentiation among populations (a coefficient based on the difference among expected heterozygosity within populations and expected heterozygosity in the species). * Deviated from Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium significantly (p < 0.01).

Genetic diversity within populations is summarized in Table1. Castanopsis sclerophylla exhibited a higher level of genetic diversity within population when compared to C. tibetana. At the population level, the average values of the number of alleles (A), allelic richness (AR), and gene diversity (H) were 5.6, 5.428, and 0.605 in C. sclerophylla, but 3.1, 3.041, and 0.454 in C. tibetana. Population KZ-XS harbored the highest genetic diversity (A = 5.6, AR = 5.426, and H = 0.629), while population GK-XS showed the lowest genetic diversity (A = 2.9, AR = 2.862, and H = 0.427). The fixation index (FIS) was 0.078 in C. sclerophylla, but 0.063 in C. tibetana. The population KZ-XS significantly (p < 0.01) deviated from − the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium across 29 loci.

3.3. STRUCTURE and NewHybrids Analyses Based on Nuclear Microsatellite Markers In the STRUCTURE analysis (Figure2A), the optimal K-value was found to be 2, indicating that all individuals sampled were assigned to two genetic clusters. One cluster corresponded to C. sclerophylla (42 individuals with cluster membership >0.993) and the other corresponded to C. tibetana (43 individuals with cluster membership >0.996). Castanopsis kuchugouzhui showed genetic admixture × with proportions of 0.606 and 0.394 for each cluster that appeared to be “heterozygous” with alleles inherited from C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana, suggesting that it could be a hybrid offspring of the two species. In the NewHybrids analysis (Figure2B), 86 sampled individuals were clearly assigned to three genotype categories with high posterior probabilities (>0.999). Forty-two individuals of Forests 2020, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 11

of the two species. In the NewHybrids analysis (Figure 2B), 86 sampled individuals were clearly Forests 2020, 11, 873 7 of 11 assigned to three genotype categories with high posterior probabilities (>0.999). Forty-two individuals of C. sclerophylla and 43 individuals of C. tibetana were assigned to Parent 1 and Parent 2, C.respectively. sclerophylla andCastanopsis 43 individuals × kuchugouzhui of C. tibetana was classifiedwere assigned as an F2 to hybrid Parent between 1 and Parent C. sclerophylla 2, respectively. and C. Castanopsistibetana. kuchugouzhui was classified as an F2 hybrid between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana. ×

FigureFigure 2. 2.(A ()A Genetic) Genetic admixture admixture coefficient coefficient of the of samples; the samples; (B) posterior (B) posterior probability probability of genotype of categorygenotype evaluatedcategory based evaluated on nuclear based microsatellite on nuclear microsatellite markers. Population markers. codes Population are the samecodes as are in the Table same1. as in Table 1. 4. Discussion

4.1.4. Discussion SSR Transferability among Castanopsis Species

4.1.The SSR ability Transferability to transfer am SSRsong Castanopsis among species Species is related to the level of divergence between the species; a closer relationship, denotes higher transferability of the primers [40]. Ye et al. [23] screened 51 The ability to transfer SSRs among species is related to the level of divergence between the microsatellite markers originally developed from four Castanopsis species (C. sclerophylla, Castanopsis species; a closer relationship, denotes higher transferability of the primers [40]. Ye et al. [23] screened chinensis, , and C. sieboldii) and found that 68.6% of SSR primer pairs successfully 51 microsatellite markers originally developed from four Castanopsis species (C. sclerophylla, cross-amplified and 31.4% were polymorphic in C. tibetana. Li et al. [41] tested 124 EST(expressed Castanopsis chinensis, Castanopsis cuspidata, and C. sieboldii) and found that 68.6% of SSR primer pairs sequence tags)-SSRs originally developed from Castanea mollissima and found that 42.7% of C. mollissima successfully cross-amplified and 31.4% were polymorphic in C. tibetana. Li et al. [41] tested 124 EST-SSR primers successfully cross-amplified and 56.6% showed polymorphism in Castanopsis fargesii. EST(expressed sequence tags)-SSRs originally developed from Castanea mollissima and found that In this study, we screened 31 SSRs originally developed from Castanopsis species and 142 SSRs originally 42.7% of C. mollissima EST-SSR primers successfully cross-amplified and 56.6% showed developed from Castanea species. We found that 80.6% of Castanopsis SSRs successfully cross-amplified polymorphism in Castanopsis fargesii. In this study, we screened 31 SSRs originally developed from in both C. tibetana and C. sclerophylla, and 52% showed polymorphism. In contrast, 35.2% of Castanea Castanopsis species and 142 SSRs originally developed from Castanea species. We found that 80.6% of SSRs cross-amplified in both C. tibetana and C. sclerophylla, and 38% were polymorphic. These results Castanopsis SSRs successfully cross-amplified in both C. tibetana and C. sclerophylla, and 52% showed were consistent with the expectation that successful cross-species amplification among closely related polymorphism. In contrast, 35.2% of Castanea SSRs cross-amplified in both C. tibetana and C. genera appears to be much lower than that within genera [40]. The moderate to very high cross-species sclerophylla, and 38% were polymorphic. These results were consistent with the expectation that transferability of SSRs among Castanopsis species implies that the species in this have more successful cross-species amplification among closely related genera appears to be much lower than similar genetic makeup and may not be completely reproductively isolated; thus, there is a chance of that within genera [40]. The moderate to very high cross-species transferability of SSRs among natural hybridization between species in this genus. Castanopsis species implies that the species in this genus have more similar genetic makeup and may not be completely reproductively isolated; thus, there is a chance of natural hybridization between species in this genus.

Forests 2020, 11, 873 8 of 11

4.2. Genetic Diversity of C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana Genetic diversity is essential for populations to adapt to environmental change. Large populations of naturally outbreeding species usually have extensive genetic diversity, but it is generally reduced in small populations and endangered species. fragmentation caused by human interference would reduce the population size and increase the spatial isolation. Such changes will be accompanied by an erosion of and an increase of inter-population genetic divergence due to increased , elevated , and reduced gene flow [42]. In the present study, moderate genetic variation was found in C. sclerophylla; the average number of alleles per locus was 6.7, and the mean observed heterozygosity was 0.557. The level of genetic diversity of C. sclerophylla was similar to that reported in other closely related species such as C. fargesii (A = 6.7, HO = 0.690) [24], Castanopsis acuminatissima (A = 10.8, HO = 0.517) [43], and C. sieboldii (A = 5.2, HO = 0.563) [44]. Compared with the species above, a lower level of genetic diversity was observed in C. tibetana (A = 4.0, HO = 0.482). The genetic diversity of C. tibetana may be greatly affected by and human interference given that C. tibetana was destroyed out on Yuelushan mountain and C. tibetana exhibited higher genetic differentiation than C. sclerophylla. Expanding the sampling of C. tibetana is required to examine how habitat fragmentation impacted the genetic diversity of this species.

4.3. Molecular Evidence of Natural Hybrid and Taxonomic Status for C. kuchugouzhui × The genetic structure analyses based on nuclear microsatellite markers show a clear genetic differentiation between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana, and two genetic clusters correspond well to the two species. The fact that C. kuchugouzhui shows genetic admixture with proportions of 0.606 × and 0.394 for each cluster indicated that it is a hybrid between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana. Natural hybridization between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana could be attributed to a full overlap in the flowering phenology of the two species that usually flower from April to May. Castanopsis sclerophylla is supposed to be the maternal parent of C. kuchugouzhui since it shared with C. sclerophylla a common haplotype × (H2) that is maternally inherited. Castanopsis sclerophylla inhabits lower elevation and would have a great chance of receiving from C. tibetana that occupies higher elevation. C. kuchugouzhui was × assigned to an F2 hybrid between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana with very high posterior probabilities in the NewHybrids analysis. However, the possible hybrid category that could occur after up to four generations of crossing between the two parent species was allowed [39]. The last specimen of C. tibetana on Yuelushan mountain was collected in 1977. Given that C. kuchugouzhui is more × than 100 years old, we can be sure that the hybridization event to form this hybrid occurred before C. tibetana disappeared from Yuelushan mountain. At the time of the presumable formation, no other Castanopsis species was present in the region but C. fargesii and a preliminary test by four SSRs did not mark any gene flow from this species to C. kuchugouzhui (data not shown). Because × the dispersal distance of and of Castanopsis species is very limited [45–47], it is almost impossible that the formation of C. kuchugouzhui was due to a hybrid dispersed from elsewhere × or was contributed to by pollen of C. tibetana elsewhere. The and cupule morphologies of C. kuchugouzhui were intermediate between C. sclerophylla × and C. tibetana [18], and C. kuchugouzhui showed mixed genetic characteristics between C. sclerophylla × and C. tibetana. However, there is only one record of C. kuchugouzhui up to now, and we did not × identify natural hybridization elsewhere, such as in Xiushui, where the two species coexisted together. These facts suggest that natural hybridization between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana is a very rare event. This is consistent with our expectation since the hybrid offspring between two species will suffer deleterious consequences termed . The hybrid offspring in the F1 and subsequent generation will be rapidly eliminated by due to their minor fitness [48]. Therefore, instead of listing as a separate species, C. kuchugouzhui should be comprehensively treated × as a natural hybrid between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana. Forests 2020, 11, 873 9 of 11

In recent years, C. tibetana on Yuelushan mountain disappeared due to serious disturbance from human beings such as tourism development. According to our investigation, C. sclerophylla inhabits lower elevations of approximately 200–1000 m and favors plenty sunshine, while C. tibetana generally prefers to grow in humid conditions at slightly higher elevations. These facts indicate that C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana have some differentiation in ecological niche occupation. The individuals of the two species seldom grow together just like they do on Yuelushan mountain and Xiushui county, although they could be found in the same forest communities. In this study, only one hybrid individual was corroborated. The very rare natural hybrid between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana may imply that the two species have strong but not complete , which may be caused by their ecological differentiation. Natural hybridization will generate new and increase genetic diversity, which is important for to adapt new environments in the face of rapid global change; thus, this new genotype of C. kuchugouzhui is worth conserving as an important germplasm. × 5. Conclusions In this study, we provided compelling evidence for the natural hybrid of C. kuchugouzhui using × chloroplast DNA sequences and 29 nuclear microsatellite markers. Castanopsis kuchugouzhui is a × very rare event of natural hybridization, where introgression occurred between C. sclerophylla and C. tibetana. The genetic analysis of this rare natural hybrid is very helpful for us to understand the genetic differentiation and gene exchange between Castanopsis species.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/11/8/873/s1: Table S1. Alleles at 29 loci used for STRUCTURE and NewHybrids analysis. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Y.S., X.Q., and Z.Z.; methodology, X.Z., R.C., Y.B., and Y.S.; software, X.Z.; validation, X.Z., R.C., and Y.S.; formal analysis, X.Z.; investigation, X.Z., R.C., Y.B., and Y.S.; resources, Y.S., X.Q., and Z.Z.; data curation, X.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, X.Z.; writing—review and editing, X.Z., R.C., and Y.S.; visualization, X.Z.; supervision, Y.S.; project administration, Y.S.; funding acquisition, Y.S. All authors read and agree to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, grant number 31770698. Acknowledgments: We are grateful to the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions that greatly helped improve our manuscript. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Harrison, R.G.; Larson, E.L. Hybridization, Introgression, and the Nature of Species Boundaries. J. Hered. 2014, 105, 795–809. [CrossRef][PubMed] 2. Mallet, J. Hybrid . Nature 2007, 446, 279–283. [CrossRef][PubMed] 3. Ungerer, M.C.; Baird, S.J.E.; Pan, J.; Rieseberg, L.H. Rapid hybrid speciation in wild sunflowers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 11757–11762. [CrossRef][PubMed] 4. Zhang, J.L.; Zhang, C.Q.; Gao, L.M.; Yang, J.B.; Li, H.T. Natural hybridization origin of Rhododendron agastum (Ericaceae) in , China: Inferred from morphological and molecular evidence. J. Plant Res. 2007, 120, 457–463. [CrossRef][PubMed] 5. Dai, S.; Wei, W.; Zhang, R.; Liu, T.; Chen, Y.; Shi, S.; Zhou, R. Molecular evidence for hybrid origin of Melastoma intermedium. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2012, 41, 136–141. [CrossRef] 6. Liu, T.; Chen, Y.; Chao, L.; Wang, S.; Wu, W.; Dai, S.; Wang, F.; Fan, Q.; Zhou, R. Extensive Hybridization and Introgression between Melastoma candidum and M. sanguineum. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e96680. [CrossRef] 7. Rieseberg, L.H. Hybrid Origins of Plant Species. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1997, 28, 359–389. [CrossRef] 8. Rieseberg, L.H.; Carney, S.E. Plant hybridization. New Phytol. 1998, 140, 599–624. [CrossRef] 9. Barton, N.H. The role of hybridization in evolution. Mol. Ecol. 2001, 10, 551–568. [CrossRef] 10. Zalapa, J.E.; Brunet, J.; Guries, R.P. The extent of hybridization and its impact on the genetic diversity and population structure of an invasive tree, Ulmus pumila (Ulmaceae). Evol. Appl. 2010, 3, 157–168. [CrossRef] 11. Ellstrand, N.C.; Whitkus, R.; Rieseberg, L.H. Distribution of Spontaneous Plant Hybrids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1996, 93, 5090–5093. [CrossRef][PubMed] Forests 2020, 11, 873 10 of 11

12. Rieseberg, L.H.; Raymond, O.; Rosenthal, D.M.; Lai, Z.; Livingstone, K.; Nakazato, T.; Durphy, J.L.; Schwarzbach, A.E.; Donovan, L.A.; Lexer, C. Major Ecological Transitions in Wild Sunflowers Facilitated by Hybridization. Science 2003, 301, 1211–1216. [CrossRef][PubMed] 13. Stukenbrock, E.H. The Role of Hybridization in the Evolution and Emergence of New Fungal Plant Pathogens. Phytopathology 2016, 106, 104–112. [CrossRef][PubMed] 14. Stebbins, G.L. The Role of Hybridization in Evolution. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 1959, 103, 231–251. 15. Isoda, K.; Shiraishi, S.; Watanabe, S.; Kitamura, K. Molecular evidence of natural hybridization between Abies veitchii and A. homolepis (Pinaceae) revealed by chloroplast, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA markers. Mol. Ecol. 2000, 9, 1965–1974. [CrossRef] 16. Ning, H.; Yu, J.; Gong, X. Bidirectional natural hybridization between sympatric Ligularia vellerea and L. subspicata. Plant Divers. 2017, 39, 214–220. [CrossRef] 17. Wu, R.; Zou, P.; Tan, G.; Hu, Z.; Wang, Y.; Ning, Z.; Wu, W.; Liu, Y.; He, S.; Zhou, R. Molecular identification of natural hybridization between Melastoma malabathricum and Melastoama beccarianum in Sarawak, Malaysia. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 5766–5776. [CrossRef] 18. Huang, C.J.; Chang, Y.T. Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae. In Castanopsis; Chun, W.Y., Huang, C.J., Eds.; Science Press: Beijing, China, 1998; pp. 13–80. 19. Huang, C.J.; Zhang, Y.T.; Bruce, B. Flora of China. In Fagaceae; Wu, Z.Y., Raven, P.H., Hong, D.Y., Eds.; Science Press and Missouri Botanical Garden Press: Beijing, China, 1999; pp. 315–333. 20. Kress, W.J.; Wurdack, K.J.; Zimmer, E.A.; Weigt, L.A.; Janzen, D.H. Use of DNA barcodes to identify flowering . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 102, 8369–8374. [CrossRef] 21. Cheng, Y.P.; Hwang, S.Y.; Lin, T.P. Potential refugia in revealed by the phylogeographic study of Castanopsis carlesii Hayata (Fagaceae). Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14, 2075–2085. [CrossRef] 22. Shi, Y.S.; Zhang, J.; Jiang, K.; Cui, M.Y.; Li, Y.Y.Development and characterization of polymorphic microsatellite markers in Castanopsis sclerophylla (Fagaceae). Am. J. Bot. 2011, 98, e19–e21. [CrossRef] 23. Ye, L.J.; Wang, J.; Sun, P.; Dong, S.P.; Zhang, Z.Y. The Transferability of Nuclear Microsatellite Markers in Four Castanopsis Species to Castanopsis tibetana (Fagaceae). Plant Divers. Resour. 2014, 36, 443–448. 24. Fu, D.D.; Wang, J.; Liu, Y.F.; Huang, H.W. Isolation of Microsatellite Markers for Castanopsis fargesii (Fagaceae). J. Trop. Subtrop. 2010, 18, 541–546. 25. Ueno, S.; Aoki, K.; Tsumura, Y. Generation of Expressed Sequence Tags and development of microsatellite markers for Castanopsis sieboldii var. sieboldii (Fagaceae). Ann. For. Sci. 2009, 66, 509. [CrossRef] 26. Waikham, P.; Thongkumkoon, P.; Chomdej, S.; Liu, A.; Wangpakapattanawong, P. Development of 13 microsatellite markers for Castanopsis tribuloides (Fagaceae) using next-generation sequencing. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2018, 45, 27–30. [CrossRef][PubMed] 27. Marinoni, D.; Akkak, A.; Bounous, G.; Edwards, K.J.; Botta, R. Development and characterization of microsatellite markers in Castanea sativa (Mill.). Mol. . 2003, 11, 127–136. [CrossRef] 28. Li, C.; Sun, Y.; Huang, H.W.; Cannon, C.H. Footprints of divergent selection in natural populations of Castanopsis fargesii (Fagaceae). 2014, 113, 533–541. [CrossRef] 29. Holland, M.M.; Parson, W. GeneMarker® HID: A Reliable Software Tool for the Analysis of Forensic STR Data. J. Forensic Sci. 2011, 56, 29–35. [CrossRef] 30. Alzohairy, A.M. BioEdit: An important software for molecular . GERF Bull. Biosci. 2011, 2, 60–61. 31. Kumar, S.; Stecher, G.; Tamura, K. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Analysis Version 7.0 for Bigger Datasets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2016, 33, 1870–1874. [CrossRef] 32. Rozas, J.; Ferrer-Mata, A.; Sánchez-DelBarrio, J.C.; Guirao-Rico, S.; Librado, P.; Ramos-Onsins, S.E.; Sánchez-Gracia, A. DnaSP 6: DNA Sequence Polymorphism Analysis of Large Data Sets. Mol. Biol. Evol. 2017, 34, 3299–3302. [CrossRef] 33. Bandelt, H.J.; Forster, P.; Röhl, A. Median-joining networks for inferring intraspecific phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1999, 16, 37–48. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 34. Goudet, J. FSTAT (Version 2.9.4), A Program (for Windows 95 and Above) to Estimate and Test Parameters; University of Lausanne: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2003. 35. Pritchard, J.K.; Wen, W. Documentation for STRUCTURE Software: Version 2; University of Chicago: Chicago, IL, USA, 2003. 36. Evanno, G.; Regnaut, S.; Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14, 2611–2620. [CrossRef][PubMed] Forests 2020, 11, 873 11 of 11

37. Jakobsson, M.; Rosenberg, N.A. CLUMPP: A cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 2007, 23, 1801–1806. [CrossRef][PubMed] 38. Anderson, E.C.; Thompson, E.A. A Model-Based Method for Identifying Species Hybrids Using Multilocus Genetic Data. Genetics 2002, 160, 1217–1229. 39. Milne, R.I.; Abbott, R.J. Reproductive isolation among two interfertile Rhododendron species: Low frequency

of post-F1 hybrid genotypes in alpine hybrid zones. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17, 1108–1121. [CrossRef] 40. Peakall, R.; Gilmore, S.; Keys, W.; Morgante, M.; Rafalski, A. Cross-Species Amplification of Soybean (Glycine max) Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs) Within the Genus and Other Legume Genera: Implications for the Transferability of SSRs in Plants. Mol. Biol. Evol. 1998, 15, 1275–1287. [CrossRef] 41. Li, C.; Sun, Y. Transferability analysis of EST-SSR markers of Castanea mollissima to Castanopsis fargesii. Guihaia 2012, 32, 293–297. 42. Young, A.; Boyle, T.; Brown, T. The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 1996, 11, 413–418. [CrossRef] 43. Blakesley, D.; Pakkad, G.; James, C.; Torre, F.; Elliott, S. Genetic diversity of Castanopsis acuminatissima (Bl.) A. DC. in northern Thailand and the selection of seed trees for forest restoration. New For. (Dordr.) 2004, 27, 89–100. 44. Aoki, K.; Tamaki, I.; Nakao, K.; Ueno, S.; Kamijo, T.; Setoguchi, H.; Murakami, N.; Kato, M.; Tsumura, Y. Approximate Bayesian computation analysis of Est-associated microsatellites indicates that the broadleaved evergreen tree Castanopsis sieboldii survived the Last Glacial Maximum in multiple refugia in Japan. Heredity 2019, 122, 326–340. [CrossRef] 45. Liu, B.; Wang, R.; Liu, Y.L.; Xu, G.F.; Chen, X.Y. Seed dispersal and predation of Castanopsis sclerophylla by small in habits with different disturbance intensity. Chin. J. Ecol. 2011, 30, 1668–1673. 46. Xu, Y.; Shen, Z.; Li, D.; Guo, Q. Pre-dispersal seed predation in a species-rich forest community: Patterns and the interplay with determinants. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0143040. [CrossRef][PubMed] 47. Nakanish, A.; Yoshimaru, H.; Tomaru, N.; Miura, M.; Manabe, T.; Yamamoto, S. Patterns of pollen flow in a dense population of the insect-pollinated canopy tree species Castanopsis sieboldii. J. Hered. 2012, 103, 547–556. [CrossRef][PubMed] 48. Frankham, R.; Ballou, J.D.; Briscoe, D.A. Introduction to ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2002; pp. 366–394.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).